National Library of Australia

Teleconference 22 September 2014

Present: Catherine Argus (NLA/Chair), Ebe Kartus (ALIA/JSC Rep), Jenny Stephens (NLA), Melissa Parent (ALIA), David Wells (ALIA), Monika Szunejko (NLA), Rebecca Gibbs (Minutes)

Apologies: Anne Robertson (EPC Representative)

Start time: 11:00 am (EST)

Welcome and apologies 

Apologies from Anne

Minutes of previous meetings and business arising 

Minutes from September 17 were accepted.

Draft responses

Comments to be submitted by email: 

6JSC/BL/18 – “Between”, “Before” & “After” dates

Of the two proposed options, ACOC prefers option 1. However the potential impact on other parts of RDA (eg RDA 1.9) needs to be addressed.  ACOC is also concerned about the consistency between RDA 1.9 and proposed RDA 9.3. 

ACOC does not support the complexity of ALA’s response. 

6JSC/BL/19 – Post-nominal letters as other designation

ACOC does not support this proposal as there is no reason to treat post-nominal letters differently to other designations recorded with parentheses.  ACOC would like broader exploration into the use of parentheses in RDA.  Some issues could be addressed through furthering 6JSC/DNB/Discussion/3. 

6JSC/BL/20 - Priority order for additions to authorised access points representing a person

ACOC agrees with the premise of this proposal, but not to the removal of priority order.  ACOC will propose an alternative suggestion to give the additions date, title and fuller form of name higher priority, followed by one or more other elements.  This will limit the level of cataloguers judgement required.  

While ACOC supports this proposal to separate Period of Activity of the person ( and Profession or Occupation (, it is noted that this reverses a previous decision that brought these elements together.  ACOC would like to express that on principle it does not generally support backtracking JSC decisions. 

6JSC/BL/22 – Place associated with the Corporate Body

ACOC does not support at this time. 

6JSC/BL/24 – Full name as addition to initialism or acronym in access points for Corporate Bodies

ACOC agrees there is an omission in RDA to create a full name variant access point for Corporate Bodies, however does not support the proposed solutions.

ACOC will propose an alternative solution with a new instruction at 

6JSC/DNB/Discussion/3 – Hidden relationships in attributes

ACOC finds this paper interesting and supports the idea of further exploration of hidden relationships. 

6JSC/Technical/WG/3 – High-level subject relationship in RDA

ACOC discussed the proposed recommendations:

  • Recommendation 1: Agree
  • Recommendation 2: Agree that subject belongs at the work level.  Support the alignment with FRSAD, but would like clearer detail on what is being proposed
  • Recommendation 3 & 4: Agree
  • Recommendation 5: Agree that relationship designators should not specify a range, however ACOC does not agree there is a need case for legacy data given that there are currently no subject chapters or subject relationship designators in RDA.
  • Recommendation 6: Agree that if recommendation 2 is not accepted, further work is required by the Technical Working Group 


ACOC discussed the proposed recommendations:

  • Recommendation 1: Agree, however would like to retain “concept, object, event, place) in the chapter scope, as this is FRBR terminology
  • Recommendation 2: Agree that the entity is named “Subject”, ACOC does not see reason to specify “Subject of Work”.
  • Recommendation 3: Agree
  • Recommendation 4: ACOC would like a clearer explanation of the core requirement 

Discussion to be continued at the next teleconference

Other business

No other business 

Next teleconference

25 September 2:00pm (EST) 

Meeting closed: 1:00 pm (EST)